Sistema Regional de Información
en línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina,
el Caribe, España y Portugal

In this paper we answer the question "What explains voting intention in the post-pandemic scenario?" based on a binary logistic model that identifies the determining factors of the Spanish population's electoral behaviour with respect to the four main national parties, using data from the Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. The analysis shows that, in first place, youth –population aged 18 to 34- is an important variable in explaining a higher probability of voting for Unidas Podemos and a lower probability of voting for PSOE or Partido Popular, while the age factor barely interferes in the vote for Vox. The other variable of great predictive power is leaders’ valuation, both positive towards the leader of the party closest to the voter and negative towards the rest of the political leaders. On the other hand, there are moderate signs of economic voting among potential voters for Unidas Podemos and Vox and a lower probability of female voting for both, especially marked for the ultra-conservative party. Ideology remains in a third level, being moderately explanatory only in the case of the vote for PP. In conclusion, youth and leadership are established as the main predictors of the vote in the post-pandemic scenario and in the face of a new electoral cycle in 2023.

Law, in contemporary societies, presents itself with special characteristics that demand -from the market- a new legal professional and, consequently, a specific training to cover such needs. Likewise, the scientific-technological revolution, also called the Third Industrial Revolution, forces us to review the traditional paradigms of legal science, now at the mercy of this new reality. The possibilities for a new type of governance, the modulations of legitimacy and the democratic principle, largely due to the risks of abandoning oneself to digital platforms, and the uncontrolled degeneration of discrimination fueled by the biased training of algorithms, they force, among other compelling reasons, the Philosophy of Law to respond in an indubitable manner to the lack of protection of the most basic rights. In framework, the binding principle of gender mainstreaming, marks, in turn, a new way of doing Law, betting on a transforming instrument of a subordinate status quo between human beings and the safeguarding of their rights.

Discussions on human mobility tend to focus on migration as settlement, ignoring travel and short-term stays. The objective of this article is twofold. The first has to do with the need to distinguish both phenomena. To this end, it proposes to conceive of travel as conceptually and normatively separate from migration. With this distinction in mind, the second objective is to defend the right to travel, based on the instrumental and intrinsic value of freedom of movement. Once we understand mobility as the norm, we will be in a position to establish the exceptions that delimit its exercise. We then proceed to examine the arguments in favor of migration controls, concluding that they do not stand up against the right to travel. The article responds to two additional objections: that of the unauthorized extension of the stay as a form of concealed migration, and that of the arbitrariness in the distinction between short- and long-term travel. Finally, we consider some situations in which the right to travel could be legitimately restricted.

The purpose of these pages is to highlight the fact that many of the decisional disagreements are not such, but rather profound disagreements that have to do with one of the pillars of the foundations of the contemporary rule of law (democratic and constitutional), such as the submission to the law of judicial adjudication, regardless of the justice of the rule or of its application to the specific case.    First, I will analyze the concept of disagreements in law, distinguishing between theoretical, interpretative, decisional and axiological disagreements. Secondly, I will focus on decisional disagreements to show that some of them are not such. These are those based on different arguments such as: a) the existence of a spurious interpretative disagreement, b) the argument based on principles and c) the argument of the defeseability of norms. These arguments are an attempt to justify the judge's disagreement on the justice of the rule or its application to the specific case, which exceeds the task entrusted to judges and questions one of the pillars of constitutional states: the submission of judicial decisions to the sources of law.

With the emergence of new tecnnologies, Artificial Intelligence (IA) is becoming a kind of new monotheistic religion, and algorithms, as if they were oracles, they are more and more omniscient. It does not matter their degree of opacity or the lack of traceability they suffer. With each passing day the cult of algorithms becomes more reverential. They seem sacred. Meanwhile, black boxes prevent the exercise of the principles of transparency and explainability. In turn, the attribution of responsibility tends to be diluted.  

The aim of this paper is to present the origin, development and essential attributes of the concept of rule of law (Rechtsstaat). Born within the framework of German public law science towards the end of the 19th century, it became established as a key concept in theory of Public Law through Kelsen’s work. The rule of law is, in its origin, a strictly formal concept, with the following essential attributes: the equivalence of law and the state and the complete adaptation of the activity of the state to the legal order. Material aspects are left out, such as the introduction of rights and freedoms or the political system of the state. For over a century now, the concept of the rule of law has presided over the development of legal philosophy and the general theory of law.

This paper analyses what vulnerability means and how it affects subjects and groups, highlighting its limits and potentialities given the intersectionality that can arise in many cases, especially in relation to race, gender, and class. To this end, the article is structured in three large blocks: The first, is an approximation to the concept of vulnerability and vulnerable groups; in the second, the type of specific situations are considered through the approach of intersectionality, especially with regard to race, gender and class, with an appreciation of the relationship between the systemic causes of discrimination and the group; and in the third and final block, a series of proposals are made and conclusions drawn. All this is examined from the inflections of thought, legal norms and political and regulatory agendas.

The consideration of the judge's technical capacity inherent in his or her appointment presupposes a procedure that is not directly linked to the idea of democratic legitimacy. The inevitable incorporation of elements of the judge's personality in the judgement imposes the establishment of control mechanisms to guarantee its greater congruence with the legal text. The principle of democratic legitimacy will in any case require the judge to inquire into the state of public opinion about the model of the intelligent and virtuous individual and its corresponding projection in the filling in of indeterminate legal concepts and in the solution of normative conflicts.

Historically, the cinema hid the homosexual topic until in the sixties it began to be shown. Since then, films have increasingly used the plot of homosexuality, to the point of creating a new thematic genre, lgtbi cinema, made up of many films that, while presenting characters and plots, combat homophobia and claim the rights of homosexuals.

Gender violence is being approached in a different way and with legislations that are far from being, at least, comparable, much less uniform and homogeneous. Hence, it is very important to heed the pronouncements of expert bodies as interpretative references of international standards on this matter and, above all, how the European Court of Human Rights utilises them to apply the European Convention on Human Rights. Precisely in that connection it is important to underline the obligations of the States for the actions of their state and non-state agents in order to protect and relieve the victim of gender-based violence from probationary requirements that may lead to re-victimization.